Human being nature orientation is one of Kluckhohn and Strodtbecks five value orientations

Introduction

Every racial/ethnic group in a society follows and observes certain patterns of value orientations to solve their common human problems faced in day-to-day social interaction, or man-environment relation (Naugle 2002; Quinney 1982). Kluckhohn (1951) differentiates values (that are desirable, worthwhile, and important to social life) from value orientation patterns (VOPs). According to Kluckhohn (1951), VOPs consist of “generalized and organized conceptions, influencing behavior, of nature, of man’s place in it, of man’s relation to man, and of the desirable and nondesirable acts as they may relate to man-environment and interhuman relations (p. 411).” Klukhhohn and Strodbeck (1961) have operationally defined VOPs as “the complex but definitely patterned (rank-ordered) principles, resulting from the transactional interplay of three analytically distinguishable elements of the evaluative process—the cognitive, the affective, and the directive elements—which give order and direction to the ever-flowing stream of human acts and thoughts as these relate to solution of “common human problems” (p. 61).

Based on Klukhhohn and Strodbeck’s (1961) conceptual framework (e.g., man-nature, human nature, time, activity, and relational orientation), this study explores, compares, and applies VOPs in social policy-practice among Muslim, Hindu, Santal, and Oraon ethnic groups in Bangladesh. Relevant comparative studies in social and behavioral sciences have explored that VOPs and its social consequences vary not only across the societies (Sowell 1991; Schwartz 2003) but also vary among racial/ethnic groups (Klukhhohn and Strodbeck 1961; Sodowsky et al. 1994) within a given society. Researchers in their studies argue that the racial/ethnic communities who are traditional-emotional in their VOPs rather than the rational-pragmatic ones are more likely vulnerable to solve their common human problems, to build up intercommunity relation, and to subjugate to man-environment relation. Further evidence shows that variations in VOPs increase ethnocentric behaviors, including social inequality, deprivation, discrimination, disparity, and even conflict among the religious and racial/ethnic groups in a given society (Ben-Ari and Lavee 2004; Lalwani et al. 2006; Ying et al. 2000). These ethnocentric behaviors associated with variations in VOPs among the religious and ethnic groups are rapidly increasing across the Latin American, Asian, and African societies, including Bangladesh.

Variations in VOPs are the most fundamental existential and sociocultural problems among the ethnic groups, including Muslim (77 %), Hindu (10 %), Santal, and Oraon (less than 2 %) of the total population in Bangladesh (Ali 1998; Uddin 2009, 2010). Previous studies (Maloney et al. 1981; Uddin, 2006) indicate that although the ethnic groups are collectivistic and patrilineal in nature, they have different perceptual and cognitive views to the social and physical universe in which they live. Some studies (Narayanan 2004; Sarker 1997; Uddin 2006, 2009) have mentioned that the different views to the social and natural environment they follow and observe are embedded in their religious-cultural belief systems. The Muslims firmly believe in Monotheism, the Hindus in polytheism, and both the Santal and the Oraon in animism that relates them to the nature. To do this, they practice different modes, manners, and rituals for their existence and survival in the society (Uddin 2006).

Based on religious-cultural belief system, several culture-specific studies conducted in this region indicate that the Muslim, the Santal, and the Oraon are the most likely to subjugation-to-nature in different modes, while the Hindus orient their behavior as compromise-with-nature (Bondopadhay 2003). In human nature orientation, the Muslims follow more good (Alam 1995; Lari 1997), the Hindus are the good and evil (Brodov 1984), and the Santal (Marandy 2006; Mathur 2001) and the Oraon (Xaxs 1998) believe in evil direction. In time orientation, the Muslim in linear mode and the Hindus in cyclical mode are more or less present, but the Santal and Oraon are more likely to past oriented (Bondopadhay 2003). In activity orientation, the Muslim, Santal, and Oraon are being oriented (Mathur 2001; Joshi et al. 2006; Zaharna 2008), while the Hindus are, to some extent, being-in-becoming oriented (Nakamura 1971). In human relation, the Muslim, Santal, and Oraon prefer more egalitarian norms, focusing on mutual support and group goal (Ali, 1998), but the Hindus are more likely to linear-hierarchical value oriented (Roland 1989). In addition, several studies also indicate that the VOPs followed by the cultures or subcultures around the world are consistently interrelated (Braithwaite 1998; Lalwani et al. 2006). Researchers in their studies argue that some ethnic communities with certain cultural patterns orient their behavior to the certain directions to the social and natural universe to solve their very existential problems (Uddin 2009).

Cross-cultural exploration and implication of variations in VOPs are noteworthy and imperative to policy-makers, development workers, and social practitioners to change and manage its consequences in applied social sciences, especially in social welfare. Previous cross-cultural literature reviewed in the multicultural societies (e.g., USA and UK.) suggests that VOPs are significantly different across the ethnic groups. Previous culture-specific literature reviewed in Bangladesh suggests that VOPs of the ethnic groups are traditional-emotional in nature through which they cannot solve their common human problems they face in man-environment interaction. Variations in VOPs of the ethnic communities also may exert social and relational effects on the interethnic community relations in this country. Although cross-cultural and/or cultural studies have contributed in the field, but little attention has been paid on the cross-cultural exploration of variations in VOPs and its interrelationships and its implications in the current social welfare literature on which social policy-makers and social practitioners may plan and manage the problems faced by the ethnic communities in Bangladesh (Uddin 2009). Using cross-cultural survey data, this study fills in the knowledge gap on the variations in VOPs and its interrelationships among the ethnic groups in Bangladesh. These findings may be important not only to social scientists to understand variations in VOPs and its interrelationships but would be helpful to social policy-makers to formulate comparative social policy and programs to change traditional-emotional VOPs into rational-pragmatic ones, like Western and EU societies. Based on comparative social policy-programs, social practitioners (e.g., social workers, educationist, administrator, and social health workers) also may apply their knowledge and skills to solve ethnic groups’ existential and sociocultural problems related to VOPs in Bangladesh.

Conceptual Framework

Value orientations in man-environment interaction are the social, emotional, and cognitive patterns of human behavior in time and space. Evidence in social and behavioral sciences reveals that human beings are sociocultural-intellectual beings than bioinstinctual ones. Using these qualities, they interact with their fellowmen, the animate beings (e.g., plants and animals), and the inanimate objects or forces (e.g., land, water, air, the Sun, the Moon, the Sky, and stars) to meet basic human needs: oxygen, water, food, nutrition and medicine, clothing, housing, attachment, and sex as well as self-actualization/realization. The perceptual and cognitive knowledge systems or conceptions about the total universe they acquire through this complex interaction process help them to solve common human problems for their very existence (Descola and Palsson 1996; Elliot 2006; Ingold 2008; Milton 2006; Quinney 1982; Springborg 1981). Based on existential philosophy, Kluckhohn (1951), 1953), Klukhhohn and Strodbeck (1961), Gallagher (2001, and Hills (2002) have developed a theory and its following three basic assumptions:

• “There is a limited number of common human problems for which all peoples must at all times find some solution.”

• “While there is variability in solutions of all the problems, it is neither limitless nor random but is definitely variable within a range of possible solutions.”

• “All alternatives of all solutions are present in all societies at all times but are differentially preferred” (p. 341).

Following these assumptions, they developed a comprehensive analytical framework (see Table 1 for definitions) that includes man-nature orientation (subjugation-to-nature, compromise-with-nature, and mastery-over-nature), human nature orientation (evil, neutral, good-and-evil, and good), time orientation (past, present, and future), activity orientation (being, becoming-in-being, and doing), and relational orientation (lineal, collateral, and individualistic) orientation that have been generally called as value orientation patterns (VOPs). Based on the analytic scheme, findings of cross-cultural research studies conducted applying quantitative or qualitative approach (Sowell 1991) are very suggestive to analyze and explain variations in VOPs across the societies or even among different religious/ethnic communities within a given society.

Table 1 Five worldviews and the possible range of variations postulated for each

Full size table

Previous cross-national studies (Goetz 1986; Neikrug and Blum 1982; Nakanishi and Dawia 2006; Sowell 1991; Schwartz 2003; Surkyn and Lesthaeghe 2004) have revealed that the American, European, and Israel cultures are influenced by Judeo-Christianity traditions as well as secular beliefs: highly pragmatic, rational, authentic, tested and verified knowledge, and modern technologies follow mastery over nature, mixture of good and evil, future, doing, and personal freedom and achievement in VOPs through which they can effectively solve their problems faced in their social and natural universe, while the other cultures, such as India, China, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, and other developing societies directed by moderately pragmatic knowledge and beliefs, the mixture of rational-emotional-ritualistic traditions prefer compromise with nature, good and evil, being-in-becoming, present, collateral-hierarchical human relations (Brodov 1984; Choi and Kim 2004; Goetz 1986; Nakamura 1971; Roland 1989; Ying 1995), and still the people of other cultures, especially folk-like religious Muslims (Al-Azmeh 1986; Choudhury 1991; Murata and Chittick 1995; Zaharna 2008), and the tribal peoples (Qureshi and Shah 1984; Sen 1992) all over the world simply believe in myths and legends, mystical, and esthetic knowledge system through which they totally subjugate themselves to the nature and prefer either evil or good, being or being-in-becoming, past or present, and lineal-collateral human relation in those ones.

It is interesting to note that there are wide subcultural variations in VOPs in the same geographical situation and national culture (Ben-Ari and Lavee 2004; Fogarty and White 1994; Gillin 1961; Groot and van den Born 2007; Klukhhohn and Strodbeck 1961; Sodowsky et al. 1994). For example, Gillin (1961) in a cross-cultural study between the Indian and the Ladino, “folk-like” communities, in the US found that the Indians harmonized to the man-nature, good in human nature, present-oriented in time, being or being-in-becoming in activity, cooperative and collectivistic in group relation, while the Ladinos dominated to and controlled over the nature, future in time, mixture of good and bad in human nature, stratified and ordering and competitive in human relation. Klukhhohn and Strodbeck (1961) investigating individuals’ from five rural communities in the US (Mormons, Texans, Hispanics, Zunis, and Navaho in the southeast region) found that the Hispanics were subjugation to nature, good in human nature, present in time, and being in activity, collateral in relation than were the other groups. The Zuni preferred good and evil, doing, future, and mastery over nature, while the Navaho preferred harmony or compromise with the nature relationship, present in time, and collateral in human relation.

Sodowsky et al. (1994), studying the White American, Mainland Chinese, Taiwanese, and African students in the US, found that the White American and Taiwanese were mastery and control over nature, good and evil in human nature, future in time, doing in activity, and personal goal and achievement in human relation, while the Mainland Chinese and Africans were subjugation to nature, evil in human nature, present in time, being or being-in-becoming in activity, and linear-hierarchical and collateral in human relation. Based on interview method, Groot and van den Born ( 2007) explored visions of mastery over nature, stewardship in regard to creation, a partner, and a participant in the process of nature among the Christians, Muslims, Native Americans, Buddhists, and Secularists. The results of the study suggested that all the groups rejected first approach, mastery over nature. The Christians and Muslims adhered to the stewardship image of human nature relationship, while the Buddhists and Native Americans considered themselves to be participants in nature. The secularists made combinations of the approaches to exemplify their view.

This conceptual framework and its underlining principles/assumptions developed by Klukhhohn and Strodbeck (1961) and followed by others (Gallagher 2001; Hills 2002) and its related findings across the cultures and different subcultures within a given society would be helpful to further examine and compare VOPs and its relationships among Muslim, Hindu, Santal, and Oraon ethnic communities in northwestern region of Bangladesh. First of all, this theoretical framework and its related findings of VOPs across the representative cultures would help cross-cultural analysis of value orientations among the cultural communities (e.g., Muslim, Hindu, Oraon, and Santal) in Bangladesh. The findings of this cross-cultural comparison would also be helpful to imply in comparative social policy and practice to build up rapport with the communities’ clients, to understand their behavior and problems and its solutions in relation to VOPs in the multicultural societies (e.g., the North America, Australia, and European Union), as well as in Bangladesh.

Method

Study Setting

This study explores and compares VOPs among ethnic communities: Muslim, Hindu, Santal, and Oraon in rural Bangladesh, mentioned above. Cross-cultural researchers have argued that rural communities compared to urban ones are relatively stable, homogenous, and spontaneous in their cultural behavior related to VOPs (Gillin 1961; Groot and van den Born 2007; Klukhhohn and Strodbeck 1961; Sodowsky et al. 1994). Following this argument, this study was conducted in villages of Rasulpur union of Naogaon district, Bangladesh. Rasulpur union is located in northwestern villages of this country. Four villages, Mongaltara, Akkelpur, Sherpur, and Ekrapara of Rasulpur union, where the ethnic communities, Muslim, Hindu, Santal, and Oraon, were living side by side in the same social, economic, and geographical situations were purposefully selected for the study. The selected villages are characterized by agricultural economy, densely populated, low socioeconomic status, traditional technology, and poor infrastructural rural development.

Sample

Overall, cultural background shows that the Muslims are ethnically Sunni and would speak in Bengali language with the mixture of Arabic-Urdu preference. The Hindus speak in Bengali language traced from Hinduism. The Santal and the Oraon racially belong to Proto-Australoid stocks and speak in Austric-Mundary language for the former and Sadri and Kuruk for the later. Religiously, every community mentioned bear and preserve distinct belief system: the Muslims would believe in Monotheism, the oneness of God or Tawhid; the Hindus believe in polytheism, Gods and Goddesses under the creation of almighty Bhagwan; and both the Santal and Oraon believe in animism, nature worships such as birth, death, illness, Sun, Moon, stars, rain, air, cyclone, and other natural disasters. Based on the cultural background, the unit of the study was the individual person of the four ethnic communities. First of all, we identified 1,450 men of the ethnic communities through snowball technique (Klukhhohn and Strodbeck 1961). Then, a total of 585 sample from Muslim (n = 150), Hindu (n = 145), Santal (n = 145), and Oraon (n = 145) were finally selected by cluster random sampling. Sample selection by this procedure was more appropriate to create homogeneity within the community’s respondents and heterogeneity among the four communities’ respondents for valid cross-cultural comparison. The participants’ mean age was 38.15 years for the Muslim, 38.23 for the Hindu, 38.01 for the Santal, and 37.97 for the Oraon. Most of the Muslim and Hindu were marginal farmers, but the Santal and Oraon were day laborers with low socioeconomic status in nature.

Instrument and Procedure

VOPs in the study, (1) man-nature orientation, (2) human nature orientation, (3) time orientation, (4) activity orientation, and (5) relational orientation, were defined and measured at the nominal and ordinal scale (shown details in Table 1). Based on the conceptualization and its measures, semistructural questionnaire with open-ended five items of questions was developed, following Gallagher (2001), Hills (2002), Harzing et al. (2004), Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961), and Oishi et al. (2005) instruments. In so doing, we considered ethnic communities’ sociocultural situations and physical reality of the villages studied. First of all, five-item questions on each VOPs were narrated/presented to the selected respondents, and then we asked which one our respondents would prefer (Hills 2002; Robinson and Shaver 1980; Zavalloni 1980). We wrote down the answers given.

Fieldwork with the semistructural questionnaire was conducted by present author from August to November 2008. In the first month (August), we built up rapport with the selected respondents. The aim of rapport building was to build up interpersonal trust between the researcher and respondents, and also to encourage them to fully and eagerly participate in and sincerely respond to the research process (Pareek and Rao 1980). In this phase of fieldwork, all the respondents agreed to participate and contribute to the research project. The informed consent and other formalities to conduct the research were obtained from all the participants.

And in the rest of 3 months, we interviewed our respondents with the semistructural questionnaire. We selected this method because most of the respondents were illiterate; they could not fill out the questionnaire. At the time of interviewing the simple questions, such as socioeconomic background questions were asked to the respondents and then the questions of VOPs were presented to them and sometimes any specific question was probed when they could not understand it. All the respondents, however, were fully participated in the research process and sincerely answered our questions presented to them within one and a half hours. These techniques for data collection were applied at the afternoon when they were leisured because most of the respondents were working in agricultural field from morning to midday. In so doing, the author conversed with the respondents in Bengali language because they all were able to effectively converse in Bengali language (national language). After completing every interview with the semistructural questionnaire on VOPs, author gave a token money 100 Taka (Bangladeshi currency) with special thanks to every respondent if it was necessary for further communication. The responses about the VOPs were converted in English (Brislin 1980).

Reliability of Data

The responses on the VOPs given by the respondents were categorical and ordinal and reliable in the sense that the interview with the semistructural questionnaire technique was applied and the author as an interviewer was skillful in that technique (Goodenough 1980). In so doing, the author built up rapport from door-to-door with the respondents in which interpersonal trust between the interviewer (author) and the respondents was developed. Based on the interpersonal relationship (intersubjectivity), the author with the open-ended questions collected objective data within one and a half hours in the personal setting in which cultural and status factors of both the parties were controlled for the collection of relevant and reliable data (Brislin 1980). However, although several quantitative studies used statistical techniques to test reliability (Klinger et al. 2004), this research used Cronbach’s alpha test for reliability of data, alpha = 0.379 and alpha based on standardized items = 0.488, respectively. The results of the test suggested that the collected data, however, were more or less reliable.

Data Analysis

Data on the VOPs were analyzed in SPSS 15 version. Pearson’s chi-square test was applied to distribute, examine, and compare variations in VOPs among the ethnic groups in Rasulpur, Bangladesh. The overall distribution of the test shows that most of the cases of the groups were at the first and second range of variations in VOPs. Results suggested that VOPs were significant different (p < 0.01) among the ethnic groups (shown in Table 2). Spearman’s rank order technique was used to explore the strength of relationships (rs) between the VOPs. Results revealed that there were statistically significant interrelationships (p < 0.01) between the VOPs followed by the four ethnic communities in Rasulpur of Bangladesh (shown in Table 3).

Table 2 Results of Pearson’s chi-squire test for value orientation patterns (VOPs) by Muslim (n = 150), Hindu (n = 145), Santal (n = 145), and Oraon (n = 145) ethnic groups, Rasulpur union, Bangladesh, 2008

Full size table

Table 3 Results of Spearman’s intercorrelation coefficients (r s) between value orientation patterns by ethnic groups (n = 585), Rasulpur union, Bangladesh, 2008

Full size table

Results

Differences in VOPs

The VOPs of ethnic communities were significantly different in Rasulpur of Bangladesh. Most of the Santal (88.96 %) and the Oraon (86.21 %) compared to the Muslim (77.33 %) and the Hindu (56.55 %) were subjugated to nature and less-likely to compromise with (9.66 % for Oraon, 7.59 % for Santal, 18 % for Muslim, and 35.86 % for Hindu) and mastery over nature (n = 585, df = 6, χ 2 = 55.56; p < 0.01). In human nature, both the Santal (80.69 %) and the Oraon (82.07 %) were the most likely to be evil-oriented, while the Muslim were good (68 %) and the Hindu (82.76 %) were good and evil-oriented (df = 9, χ 2 = 578.09; p < 0.01). In time orientation, both the Oraon (88.28 %) and the Santal (86.90 %) compared to the Muslim (78 %) and the Hindu (68.97 %) were the most likely to be past-oriented; the Hindu compared to the other communities (24.83 % for Hindu, 18 % for Muslim, 8.97 % for Santal, and 8.28 % for Oraon) were the most likely to be present and future-oriented (df = 6, χ 2 = 23.85; p < 0.01). In activity orientation, the Oraon (89.66) compared to the other communities (87.59 % for the Santal, 78 % for the Muslim, and 66.90 % for the Hindu) were the most likely to being-oriented; the Hindu (26.90 %) than the Muslim (18 %), the Santal (8.28 %), and the Oraon 6.90 %, on the other hand, were the most likely to being-in-becoming and doing-oriented (df = 6, χ 2 = 32.52; p < 0.01). In relational orientation, the Hindu (85.52 %) and the Muslim (76.77 %) compared to the Oraon (53.79 %) and the Santal (53.10 %) were the most likely to be lineal-hierarchical and less-likely to be collateral and individualistic-oriented (df = 6, χ 2 = 23.85; p < 0.01) in Rasulpur, Bangladesh.

Relationship Between VOPs

The results of intercorrelation coefficients given in the Table 3 showed that there were significant associations between the variables of VOPs at p < 0.01 level. That is, the ethnic community was positively related to human nature (r s = .679, p = 0.000) and relational orientation (r s = 0.22, p = 0.000), but negative relation to man-nature orientation (r s = −0.150, p = 0.000), time orientation (r s = −.132, p = 0.000), activity orientation (r s = −0.150, p = 0.000). The man-nature orientation was the negative relation with the human nature orientation (r s = −0.147, p = 0.000), was the negative relation with the time orientation (r s = −0.142, p = 0.001), was the highly positive relation with the activity orientation (r s = 0.941, p = 0.000), and was the moderately positive relation with the relational orientation (r s = 0.280, p = 0.000) among the ethnic communities in rural Bangladesh. In sum, the findings of this cross-cultural study suggested that variations in VOPs and its interrelationships were significantly different (p < 0.01) among the ethnic communities in Rasulpur of Bangladesh.

Discussion

Based on value orientation theory and its basic assumptions by Klukhhohn and Strodbeck (1961), this study explored and compared value orientation patterns (VOPs) and its interrelationships among the Muslim, Hindu, Santal, and Oraon communities in the Rasulpur union of Bangladesh. Using representative sample, this study found that VOPs were significantly different (p < 0.01) among the ethnic communities in Bangladesh. In addition, the VOPs were interconnected to each other (p < 0.01). These findings are consistent with the Klukhhohn and Strodbeck (1961) value orientation theory and its assumptions, and the findings of cross-cultural research studies conducted in the multicultural societies (Fogarty and White 1994; Sodowsky et al. 1994) and Bangladesh (Uddin 2009).

It is interesting to note that although the communities were communalistic, collectivistic and patrilineal in nature, and would dwell in the same geographical location and socioeconomic situations mentioned earlier, based on individual level analysis, the findings suggested that most of the Muslim, the Santal, and the Oraon compared to the Hindu were more subjugated to and less compromise with and mastery over the nature. In human nature orientation, both the Santal and the Oraon were more evil-oriented and less in the other ranges of direction, while most of the Muslim were good and the Hindu were good and evil and less in the other (evil and neutral) directions. In addition, in time orientation, the Oraon and the Santal compared to the Muslim and the Hindu were more past-oriented and the Hindus compared to the other were more present and future-oriented. In activity orientation, the Oraon, the Santal, and the Muslim in comparison with the Hindus were relatively more being oriented and the Hindu than to the Muslim, the Santal, and the Oraon were more being-in-becoming and doing oriented. Lastly, in relational orientation, the Hindu and the Muslim compared to the Oraon and the Santal were more lineal-hierarchical and less collateral and individualistic, but the later cases preferred more collateral human relation than the Muslim and the Hindu did. These findings are consistent with the results of several cross-cultural studies conducted in the same national culture and geographical situations in North America (Ben-Ari and Lavee 2004; Fogarty and White 1994; Gillin 1961; Groot and van den Born 2007; Klukhhohn and Strodbeck 1961; Sodowsky et al. 1994; Zaharna 2008).

Actually, every community group devises their cultural system in which members of the community live and interact with each other and solve their human problems faced in their social and natural circumstances according to their respective VOPs. The new members born in the particular community are also socialized and trained up by the given cultural system, although they are acculturated from other cultures or subcultures adjacent with and assimilated with the national culture. Berry et al. (1992) have rightly said that the net result of both enculturation and socialization is the development of behavioral similarities within cultures and behavioral differences between cultures. The enculturation and socialization are the crucial cultural mechanisms that produce the distribution of similarities and differences in psychological outlook at the individual level (p. 19).

Gillin (1961) in the US found that the Indians harmonized to the man-nature, good in human nature, present-oriented in time, being or becoming-in-being in activity, cooperative and collectivistic in group relation, while the Ladinos dominated to and controlled over the nature, future in time, mixture of good and bad in human nature, stratified and ordered and competitive in human relation. Klukhhohn and Strodbeck (1961) in the southeast US found that Mormons and Texans were on doing than the other groups; Hispanics were present and being-oriented and valued man’s subjugation to nature more than others; the Zuni preferred doing and mastery over nature, while the Navaho preferred the present in time orientation and harmony with the nature relationship rather than mastery over nature. Likely, Sodowsky et al. (1994) found that the White Americans would believe in human nature as good and evil like the Santal people; the Muslim people differ from it as they believe in human nature as good; in man-nature relation, Muslim people are related to African people and slightly to traditional mainland Chinese, although the Chinese and Taiwanese moved into control over nature influenced by modern education and modernization; in relational orientation, the Santal people are consistent with the Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese because of collateral and mutuality, but the Muslim people are related to the White Americans; inactivity, the Santal people are similar with the Mainland Chinese people, but the Muslim people are with the African samples.

The people of the communities also behave in patterned and shared ways influenced by their given cultural system in which the consistent interrelationships occur across the value orientation patterns (Uddin 2009). The results of Spearman’s intercorrelation coefficients suggested that there were significant relations of value orientation patterns. Specifically, the ethnic community was positively associated with human nature and relational orientation but negatively connected to other value orientation: man-nature, time, and activity. The man-nature orientation was negatively associated with the human nature orientation and the negative relation with the time orientation was the highly positive relation with the activity orientation, in turn, was the moderately positive relation with the relational orientation among the communities in rural Bangladesh (Uddin 2006, 2009). These relational findings of value orientation patterns are supported by several studies conducted abroad (Aerts et al. 2007; Braithwaite 1998; Klukhhohn and Strodbeck 1961; Lalwani et al. 2006). Klukhhohn and Strodbeck (1961) argue that the certain directions and ranges of variations in value orientation patterns among the ethnic community groups make interrelationships in the most preferred value orientations. Groot and van den Born (2007) explored images of humans, nature, and god and their relationships among Christians, Muslims, Native Americans, Buddhists, and secularists in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. They found that humans, nature, and god were interrelated among the five populations studied in Canada.

Conclusion and Implications

Value orientation patterns (VOPs) were the most fundamental existential and relational questions among the ethnic communities in Bangladesh. Studying 585 representative samples from Rasulpur of Bangladesh, this study found significant differences in and relationships between the VOPs (p < 0.01) among the Muslim, Hindu, Santal, and Oraon ethnic communities. These findings were consistently supported by several cross-cultural studies conducted in the North America and other multicultural societies. The findings of the study suggested that most of the ethnic groups’ statuses of VOPs were first ranges of directions through which they would not solve their human problems in relation to control over negative features of nature, human nature, and its man-to-man relation. Most of them were traditional or past mentality and being-oriented in the VOPs associated with their cultural myths, legends, mystical and esthetic knowledge system, while most of the people in the western and European cultures were first or second ranges of directions in connection with their authentic, reliable pragmatic, and tested knowledge (Neikrug and Blum 1982; Nakanishi and Dawia 2006; Sowell 1991, Schwartz 2003).

These cross-cultural findings have practical implications in comparative social policy and its related practice (Owens and Kleva 2007) to change in VOPs and overcome its related sociocultural problems among the ethnic communities (Federico 1980; Payne 1991). In so doing, the government of Bangladesh and her allied organizations may formulate comparative social policy based on the status of communities’ VOPs and its variations reflected in the study (Barrlo 2000; Ying et al. 2000). In designing comparative social policy, policy makers should consider the variations of ethnic communities’ value orientation patterns, cultural sensitivity, sentiment and position to take sociocultural development programs in which they all accept and participate in the programs. In addition, cognitive social programs in relation to VOPs of the communities should be taken based on rational, pragmatic, and tested knowledge in which their cultural myths, legends, mystical, and esthetic knowledge related to cultural and environmental dimensions are transformed into pragmatic and tested knowledge system (Uddin 2009).

Based on culturally-sensitive social policy, social practitioners may also imply these findings into real practice. Social practitioners firmly believe that human problems interplay in man, culture, and environment interaction. Sociocultural underdevelopment, including traditional-emotional value orientations of the ethnic communities studied, may block to meet their common human needs and impede their adjustment to the changing environment in Bangladesh (Johnson 1998). Based on culturally sensitive social-cognitive programs associated with the variations of value orientation patterns, social practitioners in Bangladesh, therefore, may mobilize social, cultural, and cognitive resources to the ethnic groups who ask for help in the social agency settings. In so doing, social practitioners may build up professional relationships with the ethnic communities who ask for any secondary assistance, social support, and even change in the cultural system through which they may help and change themselves. These cross-cultural findings may also help social practitioners to imply in assessment of and reducing for personal (mental or physical health problems and familial crisis) and social problems (poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, intercommunity conflict, etc.) that are the results of variations in VOPs and its intercommunity interaction (Sodowsky et al. 1994). In order to solve personal and social problems of the ethnic communities associated with their cultural value orientations in Bangladesh, social practitioners and social workers may apply comprehensive social development, cultural cognitive and acculturative approaches. In applying these approaches, intercultural communication, educational, participatory, and empowerment method may play important roles to build up harmonious, justified, and balanced intercommunity relations (Berry et al. 1992).

Although the suggestive findings on the differences in and relationships between VOPs among the ethnic communities studied, however, may contribute to theoretical (value orientation theories) and practical implications in applied social sciences, the study has some fundamental limitations. Previous comparative studies (Choi and Kim 2004; Lalwani et al. 2006; Uddin 2010; Ying et al. 2000) show that psychological, social, cultural, and environmental factors influence variations in value orientation patterns in the multicultural societies that may exert various biopsychological (e.g., dishonor and interpersonal hate), social (e.g., inequality, discrimination, oppression, deprivation, and conflict), and cultural (language) effects on the interethnic community interaction in Bangladesh. To analyze these antecedent multiple factors and its consequences, future cross-cultural studies should be conducted among the ethnic communities and others in Bangladesh.

References

• Aerts, D., Apostel, L., Moor, B. D., Hellemans, S., Maex, E., Belle, H. V., et al. (2007). World views from fragmentation to integration. Brussels: VUB Press, internet edition.

  Google Scholar 

• Alam, A. Z. M. (1995). Family values. Dhaka: Bangladesh Cooperative Society Limited.

  Google Scholar 

• Al-Azmeh, A. (1986). Arabic thought and Islamic societies. London: Croom Helm.

  Google Scholar 

• Ali, A. (1998). The Santals of Bangladesh. Calcutta: The Sabuge Sangah Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Barrlo, C. (2000). The cultural relevance of community support programs. Psychiatric Services, 51(7), 878–884.

  Google Scholar 

• Ben-Ari, A., & Lavee, Y. (2004). Cultural orientation, ethnic affiliation, and negative daily occurrences: a multidimensional cross-cultural analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(2), 102–111.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: research and applications (p. 19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Bondopadhay, T. (2003). Oraon of Bangladesh and their ethno-medicine practices: a study of Naogaon district. Dissertation, New Delhi: University of New Delhi.

  Google Scholar 

• Braithwaite, V. (1998). The value orientations underlying liberalism-conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 575–589.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis and J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, methodology (pp. 408–410) (Vol.2). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

• Brodov, V. (1984). Indian philosophy in modern times. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

  Google Scholar 

• Choi, Sang-Chin, & Kim, U. (2004). Emotional attachment as the basis of trust and interpersonal relationships: psychological, indigenous and cultural analysis. In by B. N. Setiadi, A. Supratiknya, W. J. Lonner, & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), Ongoing themes in psychology and culture (Online Edition). International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology.

• Choudhury, G. W. (1991). Islam and the contemporary world. Dhaka: Academic Publishers.

  Google Scholar 

• de Groot, M., & van den Born, R. J. G. (2007). Humans, nature and God: exploring images of their interrelationships in Victoria, Canada. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture and Ecology, 11(3), 324–351.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Descola, P., & Palsson, G. (Eds.). (1996). Nature and society: anthropological perspectives. London: Routledge.

  Google Scholar 

• Elliot, N. L. (2006). Mediating nature. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

  Google Scholar 

• Federico, R. C. (1980). The social welfare institution: an introduction (3rd edition). Toronto: D.C. Heath and Company.

• Fogarty, G. J., & White, C. (1994). Differences between values of Australian aboriginal and non-aboriginal students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25(3), 394–408.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Gallagher, T. (2001). The value orientations method: a tool to help understand cultural differences. Journal of Extension, 39(6), 165–17.

  Google Scholar 

• Gillin, J. (1961). Ethos and cultural aspects of personality. In Y. A. Cohen (Ed.), Social structure and personality: a casebook. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

  Google Scholar 

• Goetz, P. W. (Editor-in-Chief) (1986). The new encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., vol. 20, 14th edition.

• Goodenough, W. H. (1980). Ethnographic field techniques. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, methodology (Vol. 2, pp. 45–48). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

  Google Scholar 

• Harzing, A.-W. (2004). Does language influence response styles? A test of the cultural accommodation hypothesis in fourteen countries. In B. N. Setiadi, A. Supratiknya, W. J. Lonner, & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.). Ongoing themes in psychology and culture (Online Ed.). Melbourne, FL: International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.iaccp.org.

• Hills, M. D. (2002). Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s values orientation theory. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online readings in psychology and culture (Unit 6, Chapter 3). Retrieved from http://www.wwu.edu/~culture.

• Ingold, T. (2008). The perception of the environment: essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

  Google Scholar 

• Johnson, L. C. (1998). Social work practice: a generalist approach (6th ed.). Boston: Alyn & Bacon.

  Google Scholar 

• Joshi, P. C., Kausal, S., Katewa, S., & Devi, O. H. (2006). Witchcraft beliefs and practices among Oraons. Stud Tribes Tribals, 4(2), 145-149.

• Klinger, E. W., Chaudhary, N., & Sriram, S. (2004). Relations between social axioms and values: Findings from Germany and India. In by B. N. Setiadi, A. Supratiknya, W. J. Lonner, & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), Ongoing themes in psychology and culture (Online Edition). International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology.

• Kluchhohn, F. R. (1953). Dominant and variant value orientations. In C. Klukholn & H. Murray (Eds.), Personality in nature, society and culture (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf.

  Google Scholar 

• Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value orientations in the theory of action. In T. Persons & E. H. Shilds (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (p. 411). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Klukhhohn, F. R., & Strodbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations (p. 61). New York: Row, Peterson and Company.

  Google Scholar 

• Lalwani, A. K., Shavitt, S., & Johnson, T. (2006). What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 165–178.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lari, S. M. M. (1997). Ethics and spiritual growth (A. Q. Qarai, translated). Tehran: Foundation of Islamic Cultural Propagation in the World.

  Google Scholar 

• Maloney, C., Aziz, K. M. A., & Sarker, P. C. (1981). Beliefs and fertility in Bangladesh. Bangladesh, Dacca: International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research.

  Google Scholar 

• Marandy, J. (2006). Evangelization of the Santal in Bangladesh. Retrieved February 2009 from http//eapi.admu.edu.ph/eapr006/marandy.htm.

• Mathur, N. (Ed.). (2001). Santhal worldview. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.

  Google Scholar 

• Milton, K. (2006). Loving nature towards ecology of emotion. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

  Google Scholar 

• Murata, S, & Chittick, W. C. (1995). The vision of Islam: the foundation of Muslim faith and practice. London: I. B. Tauris Publishers.

• Nakamura, H. (1971). Ways of thinking of Eastern peoples: India-China-Tibet-Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Nakanishi, N., & Dawia, A. (2006). Environmental value orientation between residents and visitors in Kuranda tropical rainforest. The Otemon Journal of American Studies, 32, 147–175.

  Google Scholar 

• Narayanan, V. (2004). Understanding Hinduism. London: Duncan Baird Publishers.

  Google Scholar 

• Naugle, D. K. (2002). Worldview: the history of concept. Wm. B: Eerdmans Publishing.

  Google Scholar 

• Neikrug, S., & Blum, A. (1982). Differences in patterns of value orientation of Israeli and American social work students and faculty. International Social Work, 25(3), 21–29.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Oishi, S., et al. (2005). The measurement of values across cultures: a pair wise comparison approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 299–305.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Owens, K., & Kleva, W. (2007). Changing our perspective on measurement: a cultural case study. Mathematics, Essential Research, Essential Practice, 2, 571–580.

  Google Scholar 

• Pareek, U., & Rao, T. V. (1980). Cross-cultural surveys and interviewing. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Methodology (Vol. 2, p. 153). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

  Google Scholar 

• Quinney, R. (1982). Social existence: Metaphysics, Marxism, and the social sciences. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

  Google Scholar 

• Qureshi, M. Shah (ed.) (1984). Tribal cultures in Bangladesh. Rajshahi: Institute of Bangladesh Studies, vol. 141.

• Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (1980). Measures of social psychological attitudes (pp. 560–575). An Arbor, Michigan: The Institute for Social Research, 6th Printing.

  Google Scholar 

• Roland, A. (1989). In search of self in India and Japan toward a cross-cultural psychology. Princeton University Press, 2nd Printing.

• Sarker, P. C. (1997). Social structure & fertility behavior: A cross-cultural study. Dhaka: Centre for Development Services.

  Google Scholar 

• Schwartz, S. H. (2003). A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. Chapter 7 in the questionnaire development package of the European social survey. Website: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org.

• Sen, G. (Ed.). (1992). Indigenous vision: Peoples of India, attitudes to the environment. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

  Google Scholar 

• Sodowsky, G. R., Maguire, K., Johnson, P., Ngumba, W., & Kohles, R. (1994). World views of White American, Mainland Chinese, Taiwanese and African students: an investigation into between-group differences. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25(3), 309–324.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Sowell, T. (1991). A world view of cultural diversity. Society, 29(1), 37–44.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Springborg, P. (1981). The problem of human needs and the critique of civilization. London: George Allen & Unwin.

  Google Scholar 

• Surkyn, J., & Lesthaeghe, R. (2004), Value orientations and the second demographic transition (SDT) in Northern, Western and Southern Europe: An update. Available www.demographic-research.org.

• Uddin, M. E. (2006). Family structure in a village of Bangladesh: A cross-cultural study. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Institute of Bangladesh Studies, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi.

• Uddin, M. E. (2009). Cross-cultural value orientations among the Muslim, Hindu, Santal and Oraon communities in Rural Bangladesh. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 1(2), 151–160.

  Google Scholar 

• Uddin, M. E. (2010). Cross-cultural social stress among Muslim, Hindu, Santal and Oraon communities in Rasulpur of Bangladesh. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 31(5/6), 361–388.

• Xaxs, V. (1998). Cultural dimension of ecology: a case study of the Oraons. In B. Saraswaty (Ed.), Cultural Dimension of Ecology. New Delhi: D. K. Printed Pvt. Ltd.

  Google Scholar 

• Ying, Y.-W. (1995). Cultural orientation and psychological well-being in Chinese Americans. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(6), 893–911.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ying, Y.-W., Lee, P. A., & Tsoi, J. L. (2000). Cultural orientation and racial discrimination: predictors of coherence in Chinese American young adults. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(4), 427–442.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Zaharna, R. S. (2008). Palestinian value orientations. Retrieved December 2008 from nw08. American.edu/~zaharna/pales-values.htm.

• Zavalloni, M. (1980). Values. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Social Psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 82–84). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

  Google Scholar 

Download references

What are Kluckhohn and strodtbeck's five value orientations?

What are the five value orientations and their variations?

What is human nature orientation?

What are the types of value orientation?